The Godfather Saga

I read an interesting review of the Godfather Part III by Geraldo Valero on Roger Ebert's blog recently. Here is the link http://blogs.suntimes.com/foreignc/2009/12/geraldo-valero-of-mesico-citydiscusses-the-godfather-part-iii.html

I loved the fact that like most die-hard fans of the Godfather saga, Mr. Valero also goes through moments of turmoil at what the third Godfather could have been and how Coppola botched it up by casting his daughter Sofia as the female lead. Now that we know Sofia a bit better, maybe she should have been assisting daddy behind the camera instead of reducing the glamour quotient onscreen (would you seriously choose her over Bridget Fonda?). The women in all the Godfather movies have been puppets of destiny. The men perpetrate all the action and the ladies just stay in the background and react to events. Maybe having Sofia as an assistant director would have allowed us to see the events as seen through the eyes of the Kay or Michael's daughter. Connie doesn't count because she is 'one of the boys' except in the first film when she played the docile younger sister. In the other two movies she is the fourth Corleone brother. However, Kay, Michael's mother, Mary and even the short-lived Appolonia were innocent bystanders watching the Corleone juggernaut from a not-so-safe distance.

A brilliant suggestion by Valero comes in the matter of consigliere Tom Hagen as played by Robert Duvall. I have agonized over this one for many hours since the movie first came out. The exclusion of Robert Duvall, who declined for monetary reasons, is an unpardonable sin. Valero's solution is pure genius. Cut Diane Keaton out of the picture. Open the movie with a funeral scene, (Kay lying dead in the casket, seen in long-shot), and give the left over money to Duvall, because quite honestly, it isn't a Godfather movie without Tom Hagen. The bigger blunder, even bigger than omitting Hagen, is to replace him with George Hamilton (of all people) . Mercifully, the Hamilton character does not have any major role in the machinations as Hagen did, delivering threats to movie producers, bringing errant senators back into the fold in Nevada brothels, or giving a sly smirk in reaction to proclamations by Don Vito or Don Michael. What Duvall can imply with a slight twitch of his lips or a subtle hint with his eyes, Hamilton cannot hope to match, no matter how deep his tan. Having dapper George play that role just serves as a reminder that this seat was previously occupied by Hagen, and made me wonder "what would Hagen do here?" in almost every scene that has 'preening George' in it. Imagine the first two movies without Hagen. Can you imagine Hamilton in the prison yard, talking to Frank Pentangeli, asking him to do the right thing for the family? I don't think so.

In the first two movies, there was a seamless blending of storylines. The second part is more complex and has flashbacks that show us the life of Don Vito as a young man. This was the best part of the movie and lessened the impact of the sheer sadness of Michael's life post-Vito. The second movie is a dull, melancholy downer if one watches it without the flashbacks. I personally think that the third movie begged for some kind of a flashback device that explained to us the events between the 40s and the 70s. I could have excused the lack of a proper consigliere and the choice of Sofia as Mary, had there been some insight into the Machiavellian scheming and events that led to Michael making a $100 million gift to the Vatican in the third film. And it's not like we are talking about a dull period in history. I mean, the 60s?!? Jack Kennedy? Vietnam? Puzo could have woven a lot of that material into the story. Puzo's genius was in taking real-life events and making them into memorable vignettes in the Godfather saga. Johnny Fontane is a stand-in for Sinatra and his mob-assisted rise to stardom. Yes, he got out of a band contract after a few wiseguys showed up to threaten the bandleader, Tommy Dorsey. Interestingly, Sinatra's role in "From Here To Eternity" was to be given to Eli Wallach who plays Don Altobello in Part III. The story of Las Vegas, using Moe Greene as a stand-in for Bugsy Seigel, the Cuban revolution as seen from the eyes of the American mob, these were perfect blends of fact and fiction. While Coppola and Puzo used this same formula in the third installment, using the real-life Vatican bank scandal, including the hanging of God's banker from a bridge, it only whets the appetite for a flashback retelling of Kennedy's rise to power with Don Michael playing power-broker.

My biggest complaint with III, though, is the enormous chunks of footage spent on nostalgia. As the main storyline stalls when the Corleones congregate in Europe, and the love story of Kay and Michael continues, an absurd amount of time is spent on relevant but boring characters. Michael's son, the Don's grandson, is that dull?? Michael's old bodyguard from back when he was hiding in Sicily makes an appearance, but mainly stays in the shadows and so does the crippled Don Tommasino. Between the first and second movies, there was a gap of 4 years, but between the second and the third, about 14 years had passed. Enough to make Coppola rest on his laurels, get fat, (literally) and lose his edge. Between 'Apocalypse Now' and the third Godfather, he had made nothing that was remotely close to the excellence of the Godfather films or 'The Conversation'. It was a sorry state of affairs, but he made it worse by adding an element of nostalgia that served no purpose other than self-indulgence. Again, a flashback device would have added some punch to the narrative, using a 'point, counter-point' structure as with the second installment, and left less time for meanderings through the old country.

On the flip side, there were some stroke-of-genius moments in the movie. Andy Garcia was perfect for the nephew role and perfect as a combination of all four Corleone men that came before him. He had Fredo's touch with the ladies, Sonny's temper, Michael's brain and Vito's guts. The scene in his apartment when he deals coldly with would-be assassins is reminiscent of the Fanucci murder from the second movie. Eli Wallach cast as the main baddie was a brilliant touch. He could have fit in perfectly with any of the strong characters in previous films. I can imagine him with conspiring with Tessio, Clemenza and Pentangeli or bantering with Hyman Roth. Joe Mantegna, however, inserts too much schtick and has too many associations with crap like 'Baby's Day Out' to work as a real Godfather character with depth or menace, but he does OK since he is cast as a bit of a buffoon anyways. The Vatican bank scandal was based on true events and was a subtle jab at the biggest con-game of all time, organized religion after it gets corrupted by human greed. In a way, it is fitting that most bloodbaths in the first two Godfathers take place during events of religious significance, and the grand finale ends with the corruption of the Vatican itself.

Overall, as a stand-alone film, the third Godfather is a good piece of movie-making, but no one, not even Coppola, could live up to the standards of his own first two attempts on the subject. "The Godfather: Part III" will always be the good movie that could have been great.

Vivek